The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-04-19

done by any common carrier subject
to the provisions OF this act in contra
vention ofthe provisions thereof, may |
apply to said Commission by petition, [
which shall briefly state the facts"
notice and opportunity for answer
having been given, unless satisfaction
is made al investigation is re-
quested, Upon such an investigation
tue Commission will necessarily en-.
terrain tina consideration Ct the OUTS
ton whether the conduct complained
OF Ia or not in contTaventlon OF the |
provision OF the law, and II it 80 adj |
judgeP, IL is authorized to issue no.
tice eDjoining the carrier from further |
violation OF the law, aud to award |
reparation for the injury done or
both. But neither the Railway Con-
dnctorb' nor Traders and Travellers
Union complain that any common
carriers violated the law. On the
contrary, they both aver that the rail-
road companies do not know IN y
violate the law, and do not wish to 90 |
30. The con iuctors say that they
fear they will not receive passes as
heretofore; and the traders and trav-
elers say that they fear commercial
travellers will not be allowed free
transportation for l40 pounds Of ex IA
baggage, as was allowed last year.
They present 10 complaint OF any
thing done or omitted Ia contraven-
ton Of the provisions Of the law. lta
railroad company should issue pass
to a conductor and his family to "a
tend the approaching convention, or
should transport 80 pounds If bag
gage free for a commercial traveller
under the registry end Indemnity sys-
TEN, and some person, feeling ag-
grieved, should make complaint OF
unjust discrimination, it would then
be proper for the Commission 10 en-
terrain the question OF whether tuch
conduct wa, or was not in violation oil
the aw, and II 80 whether it was not
within the exceptions stated in section
20, Comp 'aints may also be presented
II the charges made by the carriers
are not considered reasonable and
Just. But until questions Of this kind
come before us in the way clearly in
dicstea by the statute, 1t would be
worse than eless for u5 to express
opinions or give advice. We should
not only lay ourselves justly open
to the charge OF assuming un-
warranted authority, but should
also run great risk of involving all
concerned in what the courts might
aiterward hold to be breaches Of the
law, by basty and i'll considered con-
clusiors, bssed upon OK parte state
ments aud arguments. Although II
might be desirable, or at least conve-
nient, in respect to any new piece OF
legislation to rave tribunal estab-
lisned to which inquirers might ap-
ply for instructions and advice re-
spectiDg the mesning OF the law and
its application to suggested "circum
stances and conditions" a moments
reflection will show that no such tri-
bunal could be properly erected.
Congress has not taken the manage
ment Of the railroads out of the hands
OF the railroad companies. 1t has
simply established certain general
principles under which interstate
commerce must be condu CT ed.
1t has been enacted in sec ion that
all charges for interstate commerce
"shal be reasonable and just" has
prohibited in section all manner of
unjust Determinations has forbidden
in SECTION all undue and unressona-
be preferences and advantages; has
required in the same section reasona-
BILE and equal facilities for the inter.
change Of traffic, and has prohibited
in section the pooling of freights.
That, in substance, is the interstate
commerce law.
There is nothing novel in these sec
tons. They simply bring back the
business OF the common carriers to the
we'll settled principles of the common
law. Yet no one can deny that there
was urgent nsed OF their statutory
formulation. Alleged difficulties in
putting them in operation only di close
examples of how they have been vio-
Ia ed in the psst.
The sections OF the act are expressed
in plain words. A construction must
DO given to them in the first instance
by the carriers and their patrons.
When a course of conduct las been
adopted, OF which complaint ismsde
that it violates the law, the decision of
the question will rest with the courts
or with the Commission, as the COM
planning party may elect. This lie the
orderly method in which all legislation
is administered and applied, and the
statute In question presents no exCep-
ton.
ODe more suggestion may properly
be added. 1t appears from the numer
GUS petitions that have been laid be.
fore US tor preliminary advice, many
OF them obviously upon the suggestion,
II not by the procurement of the car
riers themselves, that common COM
ment ON the law, by the carriers and
those who have heretofore enjoved
special favors at their hands, de-
scribeB the system of penalties which
the law provides as extreme, ami the
risks imposed upon unintentional and
unwilling yiolalors Of its provisions &c
enormous. Such comment seems to
us nei her fair nor Just. 1t is true
that Section s provides that for viola
ton of the law and for failure
to do an act which the law requires,
the offending carrier shall be liable to
the injured party for the actual dam
ages sustained, together with reason
able counsel or attorneys fee, to be
fixed by the court, and collected with
the cost 10 the case. 1t is also true
that section 10 imposes a fine "ol not
to exceed $50O0," upon common car.
riers and their officers, agents AID
servants, who wilfully do or cause to
be done, orwlllingly suffer or permit to
be done any p .ohlOited act, ETC., up n
conviction in a district court Of
the United States. The civil rem
edy described in section 8, adds
an attorneys fee to the existing
common law right Of any injured
party 10 recover the full amouot Of
his damages, condition of affairs
which cannot greatly alarm corpora
lions disposed to fair dealings, while
the criminal remedy given in section
10 obviously pertains to intentional
violators Of the law, and 10 in these
cases to be gradua cd by the court &C.
cording to the enormity OF the ofense.
Good faith, exhibited in an honest
| affort IN carry ont the reouirements of